georgia
Posts
74794Following
404Followers
2060$PAGE_VIEWS
georiga on telegram
georgia@trashserver.net on xmpp
(response times may vary)
अहं ब्रह्मास्मि त्वं ब्रह्म असि अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म
georgia
georgia
again on the isha upanishad i think that "worshipping the unmanifest/unborn" as superior to but still leading to ignorance vs "worshipping the manifest/born" can have many meanings. traditionally its interpreted by sankara as unborn prakriti vs born hiranyagarbha, but i think its worshipping being vs worshipping becoming, worshipping purusha and prakriti (although samkyhans call both unborn, to me they are cause and effect) as separate, worshipping God in an abstract sense vs worshipping God as He exists in the world, or to compare with common vedic understandings of God, worshipping the pradhana vs worshipping the devas. just like rote knowledge is enhanced by its application leading to immortality, being and becoming are best understood together leading to liberation, this is monism.
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
one who asserts divine passability must also deny divine simplicity or he must become a consciousness monist
1
0
2
georgia
georgia
the passibility debate is very much a reflection of christian myopia towards other religions, trying to innovate a theodicy when they could just look at liberated hindus or buddhists to see that while being blissful they view the suffering of everyone as their own. God is the greatest yogi, and dwells within the hearts of all, so naturally He feels the suffering of all. His compassion for us is infinite, yet He dwells in pure bliss. just like a yogis senses are intact yet they dont experience pain because of them, God suffers while not suffering. and yet, God is averse to suffering, not because it pains Him but because He is all-good. is God averse to our evil because it makes Him evil? obviously not. being averse to something because it hurts you is a form of selfishness, and God is self-less. who is more noble, someone who heals another because they fear catching their disease, or someone who heals them from compassion? viewing God as needing to be passible to be good is a misunderstanding of human empathy as well as divine empathy.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
I'm happy that I found something I really really adore at my local chinese/japanese joint but it costs 60 dollars when you buy it in the quantity I do. -.-
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
kagi has been helpful but im still envious of whatever model moon used. it was clearly superior in its reasoning and moreso it clearly had been trained with primary sources.
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
I dont know how sankara can say that karma is opposed to jnana when one is advised to perform karma and study at the same time. and he claims vidya means personal deity meditaton, but he also cites an aranyaka that says meditation has a different and superior fruit to performing rituals while the upanishad says that vidya is inferior to ritual.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
in the isha upanishad commitment to ritual duties (called "worship of ignorance") is said to be better than devotion to rote knowledge (called "worship of knowledge" to provide a deliberate contradiction where knowledge is more damning than ignorance) because karma is a great teacher and leads to less ignorant rebirths while partial knowledge or knowledge for its own sake (that doesnt lead to dharma or moksha) is a form of ignorance. but taken together, performance of duties and rote learning, or karma with devotion to studies, shows knowledge and its application, or true knowledge, and one can cross over the ocean of samsara by this. this is obviously meant to be analogous to vedic sacrifices (karma kanda) combined with learning the upanishads (jnana kanda).
0
0
1
georgia
georgia
on "idolatry"
Show content
all things are God, yes. who can feel revulsion or hatred for others when they know this? for the world? what is to be rejected except that which leads away from God, and thus for one who already knows God, what is to be rejected? thus the material world can be enjoyed by the knowing.
for the knowing hindu, the murti is a celebration of divine immanence. when what is called by abrahamics "idolatry" occurs, it occurs without knowing that the world is God and that God is active in the world. one can worship even a clod of earth as God in knowledge, but if one worships a clod as if God is a clod, he is in great error. so basically, a murti is God, but God is not a murti. we are God, God is not us. God is the only reality.
this applies to "polytheism" ie worshipping lords other than God as well, whether devas or "god-men" (the latter assuming they actually have siddhis and are not frauds, grifters and cult leaders like 99 percent of them). worshipping something for a limited function (he is the god of rain, he makes the rain. or, he is a "god-man", he can walk on water. or, it is an idol, it facilitates my worship by looking like a god.) rather than its unlimited essence is ignorance, and often sinful. the essence of all things is God, the function varies. only God is identical in His existence and energy/powers and His essence (divine simplicity), both truly infinite. which is to say God can perform any function by His inherent freedom and potency, but i should say that worshipping Him in anticipation of a reward is a much lesser form of worship.
as for the devas and the siddhas, they are agents of God, aligned with His will. if they are amazing and venerable, it is because God is. worshiping them in their own right is ignorance and leads to karmic bondage, especially if it is for selfish reasons. selfishness too is rooted in ignorance.
let me return to murtis. murtis are instruments of getting closer to God through knowing action (knowing about God, knowing about oneself, and knowing about the murti). and in a similar manner that giving a child a doll can foster loving feelings of parenthood and responsibility, bathing a murti (for example) creates feelings of love for God. and to love God is to know God, because God is love. what could be wrong about that? proper murti worship is not just bhakti but also nishkama karma and jnana. all these paths lead to God. but without jnana, it all falls apart. ignorant love is not love, its infatuation, and like all desire, its selfish.
for the knowing hindu, the murti is a celebration of divine immanence. when what is called by abrahamics "idolatry" occurs, it occurs without knowing that the world is God and that God is active in the world. one can worship even a clod of earth as God in knowledge, but if one worships a clod as if God is a clod, he is in great error. so basically, a murti is God, but God is not a murti. we are God, God is not us. God is the only reality.
this applies to "polytheism" ie worshipping lords other than God as well, whether devas or "god-men" (the latter assuming they actually have siddhis and are not frauds, grifters and cult leaders like 99 percent of them). worshipping something for a limited function (he is the god of rain, he makes the rain. or, he is a "god-man", he can walk on water. or, it is an idol, it facilitates my worship by looking like a god.) rather than its unlimited essence is ignorance, and often sinful. the essence of all things is God, the function varies. only God is identical in His existence and energy/powers and His essence (divine simplicity), both truly infinite. which is to say God can perform any function by His inherent freedom and potency, but i should say that worshipping Him in anticipation of a reward is a much lesser form of worship.
as for the devas and the siddhas, they are agents of God, aligned with His will. if they are amazing and venerable, it is because God is. worshiping them in their own right is ignorance and leads to karmic bondage, especially if it is for selfish reasons. selfishness too is rooted in ignorance.
let me return to murtis. murtis are instruments of getting closer to God through knowing action (knowing about God, knowing about oneself, and knowing about the murti). and in a similar manner that giving a child a doll can foster loving feelings of parenthood and responsibility, bathing a murti (for example) creates feelings of love for God. and to love God is to know God, because God is love. what could be wrong about that? proper murti worship is not just bhakti but also nishkama karma and jnana. all these paths lead to God. but without jnana, it all falls apart. ignorant love is not love, its infatuation, and like all desire, its selfish.
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
so often when i have a problem with the upanishads i look at a more literal translation and the problem ceases
0
0
1
georgia
georgia
somehow even when kagi calls sanksrit hindi (which it frequently does) it translates it correctly
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
i would say that Atma-hanah (killers of the Self) means people who harm themselves in any significant way, killing their own spiritual realization. to harm oneself is to distance oneself from God, to distance oneself from God (the Self) is to harm oneself. in this way, they commit suicide, dooming themselves to a (premature) death and to an ignorant rebirth in the asurya worlds (which are asurya in that they have no sun and also in that they are asura-like, aka demonic). i especially view this in light of the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna talks about demonic people who undergo terrible masochistic austerities and hurt Him within them. (i know i said God is impassible but He does feel everything we feel in the way a yogi can feel the senses and be detached or even transcendentally moved by them as God is by His own being) being atma-hanah isnt denying one has a soul or viewing the soul as corrupt a la sankaras interpretation, or simply being ignorant of the Selfs nature, it is primarily being highly antagonistic to God and thus oneself and to oneself and thus to God.
2
1
3
georgia
georgia
God also taught me that i shouldnt criticize people like madhva because He fears God and I do not. In fact, when i talk about God on fedi, it is to magnify myself, not God.
0
0
1
georgia
georgia
considering most wealth is hereditary directly or indirectly, classism IS casteism.
0
0
2
georgia
georgia
in my opinion sankara is wrong that karma is opposed to jnana. all desireful karma leads to phala, and this process is a learning experience. experience, including suffering, is a great teacher. God taught me this yesterday, that though i sought to be taught by God, my suffering was God teaching me. God was already my guru.
0
0
0